Call it a race for Governor.
Suppose one candidate wants to aggressively seek out natural gas or oil or whatever. Candidate #2 does not, in favor of protecting the state's beauty and environment.
Suppose strong environmental interest groups or an Arab country use hackers to infiltrate private e-mails of Candidate #1, and then disseminate the e-mails, some of which have been doctored to fabricate that the candidate is engaging in a same sex affair or hates blacks or does not believe in God or whatever.
Are you saying the dissemination of hacked info is fair game, so long as the content is true and accurate? Once disseminated, is it not too late to put the toothpaste back in the tube, if not true?
If an elected official swears an oath to defend against all enemies, foreign or domestic, . . . why not guard against such intrusions as a candidate as a matter of honor, even if the hacked content can be used against the opponent?
Maybe your position is that this all fair payback for ACORN and the like, notwithstanding clear GOP cheating in Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004. All irrelevant. We are not talking about voter fraud and voter suppression. The issue is whether the media and/or a candidate has a duty to not be an enabler (or an accomplice) by disseminating hacked information, particularly when perpetrated by a foreign entity with the intent to subvert or influence our democracy.
It would seem very small minded to answer that question based upon whether the content or "fruit of the poisonous tree" benefits one's candidate.